https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2020

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI** **ELRC CAUSE NO. E1057 OF 2024** **PAULINE NYAMBURA WARUHIU……………………………CLAIMANT** **VERSUS** **DIRECTLINE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD…………... RESPONDENT** **RULING** **Background** 1. The Claimant instituted this suit through a Statement of Claim dated 11th December 2024 seeking orders to, inter alia, restrain the Respondent from taking disciplinary action against her or terminating her contract of service. Concomitant with the Statement of Claim, she filed an application seeking interim orders to stop the disciplinary process against her. 2. In a ruling delivered on 30th June 2025, the court issued an order to restrain the Respondent from proceeding with the impugned disciplinary process on the ground that it (the process) was procedurally flawed. Nevertheless, it (the court) granted the Respondent the liberty to institute fresh disciplinary action against the Claimant, if it had cogent reasons for doing so, as long as it undertook the process in compliance with the law, its human resource policy and the contract between the parties. 3. Riding on the aforesaid order, the Respondent issued the Claimant with a fresh notice to show cause letter dated 4th July 2025 where after it conducted a disciplinary hearing against her and terminated her services. Although the Claimant appealed the decision, the appeal is allegedly yet to be heard. 4. These developments pushed the Claimant to file the application dated 14th October 2025 seeking to amend the Statement of Claim to plead the changed state of the claim. The application is supported by the grounds on the face thereof and the affidavit by the Claimant. 5. According to the Claimant, after the court issued the ruling dated 30th June 2025, the Respondent issued her with a fresh notice to show cause letter. She avers that the letter reiterated the very same grievances which were the subject of the earlier disciplinary process which the court had stopped. She further avers that the Respondent declined to hear her appeal against the subsequent decision to terminate her services. As such, she avers that the subsequent disciplinary process was flawed and hence the need to amend the Statement of Claim to challenge it. 6. The Respondent is opposed to the application. It has filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 12th March 2026 to anchor its opposition to the motion. 7. The Respondent contends that the application is bad in law since it seeks to introduce a new cause of action. It (the Respondent) avers that if the Claimant wishes to challenge the subsequent disciplinary process, she should file a fresh suit. **Analysis** 1. The law on amendment of pleadings is now settled. Litigants are entitled to amend their pleadings in order to plead all the issues in controversy for resolution by the court. As such, the court is expected to freely grant requests for amendment of pleadings as long as they (the requests) are made in good faith. 2. Notwithstanding that requests for amendment of pleadings are to be freely granted, they should be declined if their net effect is to: introduce a new and inconsistent cause of action or defense; take away an accrued right such as the defense of limitation of actions. 3. Although the court is entitled to decline a request to amend pleadings in cases where a new cause of action is proposed, it should do so only if the proposed new cause of action is inconsistent with the cause of action that has already been pleaded. As such, a request to amend pleadings should not be declined merely because the proposed amendment will introduce a new cause of action if the new cause of action will not be at cross purposes with the existing cause of action (***Mwangi v Garissa & another [2025] KEELRC 3279 (KLR)***). 4. In the court’s view, the instant application does not seek to introduce an entirely new cause of action. The claims which the Claimant seeks to introduce through proposed amendment arise from the same set of facts which informed the filing of the suit. However, even if the proposed amendment is likely to result in the introduction of a new cause of action, the said cause of action will not be inconsistent with the subsisting cause of action. **Determination** 1. The upshot is that the application to amend the Statement of Claim is allowed on the following terms:- 2. The Claimant is granted leave to file and serve the amended Statement of Claim within 14 days of this order. 3. The Respondent is granted leave to file and serve an amended Statement of Defense within 14 days after service of the amended Statement of Claim. 4. Costs of the application are granted to the Respondent. **Dated, signed and delivered on the 15th day of July, 2026** **B. O. M. MANANI** **JUDGE** In the presence of: …………….for the Claimant …………….for the Respondent **ORDER** **In light of the directions issued on 12th July 2022 by her Ladyship, the Chief Justice with respect to online court proceedings, this decision has been delivered to the parties online with their consent, the parties having waived compliance with Rule 28 (3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings shall be dated, signed and delivered in the open court.** **B. O. M MANANI**